skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That's just arguing semantics, many of those dynamics go hand in hand.
Anyway we can meet here again in 12 months and have a clearer picture of the consequences of the past months on israel's legitimacy. Thank you for the conversation.
What really made cities ugly is when we demolished half of each to make space for cars. A bollard is a weird place to start caring about aesthetics.
Some compilers I've written are Northwest C, Datalight C, Zortech C, Zortech C++, Symantec C++, Digital Mars C++, and the Digital Mars D compiler. The last one, DMD, still has code in it from those previous compilers :-/

I've also written a Java compiler (not from scratch) and a Javascript compiler/interpreter, and designed the ABEL (Advanced Boolean Expression Language) PLD compiler.
> During the UNIX freebie days no one cared about Stalmman's freedoms.

On the contrary, they cared plenty, because GNU freedoms let them have a usable, reasonable-quality (and sometimes high-quality) environment both as developers and as users, which they could otherwise not get unless they were rich or employed by a corporation (who would then have them do what it wanted, not what they might have wanted to spend their time on).
In Poland, admission to public universities is only based on your standardized test score. People grading standardized tests don't know your name or anything beyond a number, so discrimination is simply impossible.
Years ago i went and looked for most powerful 1155 processor my old motherboard supported and i think it was i7 3770 - i bought it for 20usd. How it can be 300 now?
people don't say "I'm going to Burger King's" or "I'm going to Costa's"

Oh yes they do!

There's nothing to analyze: "Tesco's" is just wrong.

It’s kind of funny that there are prescriptivists on both sides here, all convinced that they’re right.
UI colors can have different meanings in different cultures.

Suppose you don't care anything for all of this political noise and you just want to make money. Do you want to use the same colors on your website in the countries where red implies danger as the ones where red implies prosperity and vitality? If it will be the same for everyone, might knowing how some large subset of the viewers will interpret it change what you choose?
I learned to program using Turbo Pascal and kept going with Delphi. I then had a 10 year break doing mainly C++.

Having compile times suddenly go up 10-100x I found myself being much more careful before compiling.

Don't think I spent that much more time, just an extra pass looking things over, making sure I wasn't doing something obviously wrong etc.

Hard to maintain that discipline now that I'm back to "instant" compilation, for some reason.
I have found that early/premature abstraction generally has the opposite of the intended effect. Rather than making the system open to extension and flexible, it pours code concrete around the concrete classes and the interfaces. Invariably, the interface ends up with every public method of the only implementing class. And methods taking "SuperInterface" which only use a subinterface of that interface can't be untangled without a ton of effort.

Meanwhile, if you can figure out small reasonable interfaces with potentially multiple implementers, then all the sudden things get a lot easier to deal with.
And they're expensive. You pay thrice:

1. Engineering the generalized solution, then

2. Carrying the cognitive burden of this new indirection layer, and finally

3. Ripping out this premature -- and so likely wrong -- abstraction

Premature abstractions are like alcohol: fun borrowed from the future, and paid back later with interest. If unavoidable, choose the abstraction most narrowly scoped to your actual code base, not a future one. Humans suck at prediction. Ask me how I know.
You know it was just piles and piles of horse shit everywhere before cars, right?
One pretty strong argument against that claim comes from an interesting experiment with world class chess players. When you give top players positions from real games they can often memorize dozens of boards, which makes for pretty impressive blind simultaneous matches, I think the world record is in the dozens. But when you hand them illogical or random positions that never occur on boards they can maybe memorize one or two boards, only a little bit better than an amateur with reasonable memory.

You could even try this with programming. Have a programmer memorize a page of code then try it with someone who has never coded. Pattern recognition, which is learned, has huge impact on ability to memorize. It's sort of intuitive why, if I see three functions and I can recognize that it's fizzbuzz, recursive fibonacci and bubble sort all I need to remember is variable names. My dad who has never seen code would have to recall every symbol.
Which sort of goes hand in hand with the idea of white privilege. If I grow up dirt poor, with uneducated parents, in a rural dirt poor region where there wasn’t anyone except other white people in a 100 mile radius for me to be favoured over, apparently I’ve still benefited from some sort of systemic or inherent bias in favour of myself on the basis of race. Which apparently needs to be corrected and puts me at a disadvantage when applying to certain schools or jobs.
"Imagine a world" is a common rhetorical way to start to an aside designed to be a deep generalization/alternate universe thought experiment. Yes, it was an intentional change of topic towards an aside. When you started your comment by quoting that specific phrase I easily assumed that you were interested in following my aside into generalities and/or alternate universe thought experiments. I didn't retcon anything, I intentionally created a fork in the conversation with my aside and assumed that by engaging with it you wanted to follow me down that aside. There's a lot of fun things we could have talked about if you had, and I regret that that wasn't what you were looking for. I'm sorry that "imagine a world" wasn't a strong enough indicator of an aside to the thread above.

That said, you've now called me condescending twice and I don't appreciate ad hominem attacks and will not engage with you further on this thread. I hesitated to even write this comment. (I also don't engage by creating "sock puppet" accounts, and I see the other comment accusing me of "sock puppeting" as a third, further unwarranted, ad hominem attack in this thread.) I don't think I need to reread the thread to know what happened in the communication mistakes, but I would suggest that you try to refrain from using attacks to deal with what were simple communication mistakes in the future.
Imagine if the US banned a site just because of baseless fears about its content and the foreign ownership of its parent company. Hmm.
How does email play into this?
In my brain, Microsoft is two companies at once. Old Microsoft and New Microsoft.

The split is categorized by Satya's focus and specifically MS's acquisitions after he took over.

This new Microsoft does very well (Azure, Github, Linkedin, OpenAI investment, Unix focus (WSL, C#/.net on linux)

However the old Microsoft is still around and in some ways just as bad as ever. Namely Windows.
It was too outrageous to be believed until it was too late.

Remember the term "SJW" (social justice warrior) from around a decade ago? That was wokeism and DEI before it got its current branding. The people who saw this coming were dismissed as crazy.
> Free to use. No strings attached.

Unlimited notes with online syncing? For free? I refuse to believe that. What's the catch? As the old saying goes: If it's free, you're the product.
Snowbirds from Winnipeg will quickly get outcompeted for foreign vacation rentals/properties lmao
It's even more primitive than, say, a mechanical calculator of that era, which yes, the NMC does have in a cabinet near the start. The Bombe isn't doing even simple arithmetic. It's essentially an electric motor, plus a lot of very complicated electrical wiring, to verify whether some particular setup (say, rotors I, V and IV in that order, set to JOM initially) could or could not ever cause the crib (a guess at some text an operator intended to send e.g. "Heil Hitler") to be converted into the ciphertext being attacked.

Each such setup is tried, very briefly, and if it couldn't be correct, the motor winds to the next, and the next and so on, until one setup which could be "Heil Hitler" is found. This is a "stop" - the machine literally stops until set going again. Women running the machine note down the exact setup which stopped it, and elsewhere very smart people try assuming this stop is correct - it might be, or, maybe the machine will stop again later, or, maybe the crib was wrong, maybe this message has a typo, "Heil Hiter"...

It's fantastically complicated but only in the same way that for example the movement of swallows is complicated. There's a relatively simple rule, it's just followed to an extreme degree and so that's impressive. It's not really very clever, and it's nothing like a computer.

Colossus isn't a programmable computer. It's for attacking Lorenz, so the people who built it didn't care that to attack a slightly different cipher the machine must be taken to pieces and re-assembled accordingly, they were here to attack Lorenz. In the rest of the early gallery there are several machines which are, or aren't, depending on how you squint truly programmable, truly electronics, truly storing the program and so on. But the Bombe is to these machines as the Super Bowl is to tennis. It's not that it's a very primitive and strange game of tennis, it's not tennis at all.
> There are outstanding systemic inequities at every level of American society.

I think this needs to be backed up with evidence rather than merely asserted. I've been reading through a number of books by Thomas Sowell lately and he presents enough statistical evidence to explain disparities without any hint of racism, sexism, etc. Regardless of if you agree with him or not, the mere fact that alternate theories exist that explain why society looks as it does today should be enough to question the foundational problem that DEI claims to address.

Take as an example the gender pay gap which is presented as women earning 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. While statistically true in aggregate, DEI tends to treat this axiomatically as a sign of sexism. If you dig into the statistics the vast majority of this difference is due to the fact that many women voluntarily take time off of their career to raise children.
wiki article on the subject isn't bad.

1) Formalism was called Bourgeois Formalism by the state critics. Elitist art, opposite of what would become Socialist Realism.

2) If you click the names at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_formalism , some of the biographies will lead you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootless_cosmopolitan . Being a Jew in the USSR was an additional risk.

3) Slightly later in history, but typical use of formalism-as-a-prejorative : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhdanov_Doctrine

tldr: young authoritarian states need enemies. Both internal and external. Repression of any form of dissent is a way to unite (or scare into submission) the masses. See also: "degenerative art" in Germany. Also being apolitical is a political statement.

There's a good timeline of the 20s in Russian:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%B1...
I was trying to explain to some "civilians" just how much computer power Facebook dumped into the training of their AI models. First off, it's worth mentioning that the GPUs they're using are on the same kind of "banned for export" list as parts used in nuclear weapons. Facebook bought enough of them that the equivalent in weaponry would be a decent sized fleet of ICBMs with multiple warheads (MIRV) each.

They didn't spend this cash for laughs, they're buying it for a purpose, and that purpose existed before ChatGPT was a big hit. Both Zuckerberg and Yann LeCun have stated in interviews that they're invested this money into AI for Facebook feed recommendations and for competing directly with TikTok in their Reels app. In other words, Meta aimed the digital equivalent of a weapon of mass-destruction at your kids' brains, with the express aim of getting them addicted to their products just like TikTok, but even more.

If you want a visualisation of the kind of raw power that your teenager is up against, I came up with this:

- A billion can be visualised as as 1m x 1m x 1m block subdivided into cubic-millimetre tiny little cubes. Think very coarse sand or very small pebbles. Just picture yourself trying to count out the grains in a block that size!

- A billion-billion is a cubic kilometre of the same sized grains.

- Facebook used two-trillion-trillion computations to train one of the smaller Llama 3 models! That's 2 million times the amount above, about the same as 1000 km x 1000 km covered 2 km deep. That's an area the size Egypt. Alternatively, Greenland covered 1km deep, or Texas 3 km (2 miles) deep.

That's what your kid is up against.

Good luck.
>What have said that's factually incorrect (please be specific)?

This:

"AM radio communications is the best value for money of any communications system outside of telegraphy (wired or wireless). It's cheap, simple, easy to construct, and it's scalable to any size (and transmission distance) that's needed."

AM is technically simple, but it isn't cheap, practically simple or easy to construct. You need to throw an enormous amount of power into the air relative to a more efficient mode, which means big transmitters, big masts, big power bills, big repair costs. AM broadcast stations are being closed down at a rapid rate because they're very expensive to run and maintain. That infrastructure is inherently vulnerable to whatever end-of-the-world scenario you might be worried about.

You can get a very long distance contact on AM, but you need good propagation conditions and a great deal of luck; a suitable digital mode will do that on a long wire hanging out of an apartment window during a solar minimum.

>Why is AM is incredibly inefficient?

The carrier signal and half the sideband is completely wasted power, hence SSB. The majority of the power going into your antenna carries no information whatsoever, it just compensates for the crudeness of the receiver. With AM there is a 1:1 relationship between the SNR at RF and baseband; the only way to overcome noise local to the receiver is to throw a louder signal out of the transmitter.

Even FM has an advantage here, but a digital mode can operate on incredibly tight SNR margins. The modulation scheme can run pretty close to the Shannon-Hartley limit, and (if you need voice) you can drastically reduce your data rate with a good voice codec. If you don't need voice, then you can use a very data rate and work on incredibly low (or even substantially negative) SNR. Spectral efficiency and power efficiency are two sides of the same coin.

As I said in my original comment, AM receivers are commonplace, but that's the only thing going in AM's favour. If we were to design a communications system of last resort today, there are a multitude of better options. Relying on the existing AM broadcast infrastructure for emergency communications is mostly wishful thinking if you compare that to a really serious system like Japan's J-alert.
FORTUNATELYSPACESAREARELATIVELYNEWINVENTIONASARELOWERCASELETTERSANDPUNCTUATIONINGENERAL
Armando Iannucci's career has twice now been upstaged by the increasing ridiculousness of reality in politics.

One of the reasons he says he stopped making his first series, The Thick of It, was that UK politicians became parodies of themselves. There was nothing left to make fun of. Then the same thing happened to his American incarnation, Veep.
Can you send me a direct email about your bad experience? julien _at_ serpapi.com
Your profile is private so no-one else can see this :-|
I can't find any indication that what you claim is true. Can you provide citations?
You can bounce a digital signal off the ionosphere much more easily than an AM signal - see the first in my comment.
I think the issue is that you are saying things are "normal" without addressing whether or not they are right and good.

I would probably agree with you that it's normal for a country at war to want to control information flow. But that's absolutely a bad thing! Obviously not all "information" is created equal: some of it is high-quality and objective, and some of it is lies (and everything in between). I don't trust pretty much any government entity to be objective about these sorts of bans, though. The ultimate consequence of these sorts of things is a poorly-informed, propagandized public.
> The fact that you drew a comparison to BBC is telling.

That indeed was a specific choice - you could also state that it's a state-run "propaganda tool". It's also going to have a western (specifically UK) based view on the media it's reporting on. The same is true of Al Jazeera, or the Australian Broadcasting Company.

That, in and of itself, does not mean it is "blatantly lying". No news agency is without bias, and believing so is naive.

Does Al Jazeera have areas for improvement that are likely to not materialise due to the context in which the company is based? Sure, but that's also true of Fox News, CNN, the BBC, ABC, or random Reddit commenters.
yes and no.

i hate 2FA as well, but in the end, even if i loose my access to github i only loose access to my github identity but i don't loose access to my code, so i can live with that.

of course in the light of this discussion losing access to my github identity would be part of the problem, so it's a tradeoff. is it more likely that someone will break into my account and abuse my identity if i don't have 2FA or is it more likely that i loose my second factor and have to rebuild my identity. in the latter case someone else could also pretend to be me, but since the xz debacle both of us would face more scrutiny that my hope still is that i would win.

will the real eMBee please raise their hand?
they very well might have been evaluated based entirely on their abilities alone.

A toxic element of DEI is that now they have to always wonder (as does everyone else) if it was done because of their skin color/gender/race, regardless of what their mentor says. Because it very well may be true as well.
Yeah, that's why I asked for when as well. Ceejayoz addressed the first point; I'll link this to address two and four:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/14/media-blocked-threatened...

Although VoA is the USA's state sponsored news outlet, they have reasonably good analysis on what led up to the 2013 ban. https://www.voanews.com/a/al-jazeera-iraq/3306460.html
The whole country had a mission, and the overwhelming feeling was that the US along with the Allies were in a conflict for survival, that without winning the war the existence of the US would not be possible. On December 6th 1941 public opinion leaned towards isolation from the “European” war. On December 8th 1941 Congress voted unanimously sans 1 vote to declare war against Japan. It is hard to overstate the fervor that immediately swept over the whole country. People are willing to endure the most demanding trials given the proper circumstances; at times the most realistic course of action is to do what once seemed impossible.
One thing that might be missing from your calculation is that "one median-family-year of work" meant "about one person working" in 1940 but means "about two persons working" in 2022.
That'd be hilarious =P
Sigh, now we've stuck in a world of Google or Apple. I recall a world where each phone had itself own OS, or firmware. Every phone was different.

I miss my Lumia and my Sony Ericsson k700i and just the simplicity of texting.
If you know about the author of this post Gary Marcus you can just as easily ascribe accusations of fear, The Denial of Uncertainties, Hype and self-promotion/grifting
i don't think rust has replaced c, or is likely to

preceding c, there was a large, complex, portable algol-family language capable of handling a range of applications similar to c's, called pl/1. if you read 'the elements of programming style', from about the time c was born, many of the examples are in fortran; most others are in pl/1. gary kildall's first job working on microcomputers was at intel writing pl/m, a cut-down pl/1 for microcomputers, for which he wrote cp/m, from which ms-dos grew. ibm's database db2 is still written in a dialect of pl/1 called pl/x. one of wirth's first languages was a thing called pl/360, which was a version of pl/1 with extra low-level facilities for bootstrapping a better language

in short, pl/1 was very widely used and highly influential, even though it's almost forgotten today

and that's because it kind of sucked. compiling it required a large computer and even then was slow. even at the beginning, it was highly complex, so learning it took a long time. this got worse over time as more and more features were piled onto it, often as ill-advised efficiency hacks that then couldn't be removed, because people's programs depended on them. because it was highly complex, and there were a lot of surprising problems that resulted from complex interactions of all its complex features; compiler developers improved this situation significantly by working hard to provide better error messages, but that only diminished the problem rather than eliminating it

the preceding paragraph describes rust exactly as well as it describes pl/1, so if someone succeeds in producing a c-like small, simple language that provides enough of rust's unique advantages (which are indeed very compelling) i expect that it will replace rust

i doubt it will replace c tho
The manoeuvre to become a for-profit organisation after years without paying taxes tells something deeper about OpenAI true way of operating.

Accepting to do deals with people who have no shame for pulling such trick is to accept they will do it again in a much bigger scale.
Sounds like you're looking for Caddy's On-Demand TLS, then. No other server or ACME client does this. https://caddyserver.com/docs/automatic-https#on-demand-tls
For what it's worth, try to take it easy on each other in this thread: I cannot think of a worse messenger than Gary Marcus for this, he's directly equivalent to Sam, but on the downside.

AI-as-meme has been around long enough now that its being force-interpreted into two camps, "its all a scam, at best it only knows how to reproduce exact training data" and "it's glory shall have us working 0 hours by 2030". This article won't shed light on reality, the in-between.

ex. lets walk through the opening:

1) "How do you convince the world your ideas and business might ultimately be worth $7 trillion dollars" -- he's referring to an unsourced rumor, that never made any sense, that Mr. Altman approached Saudis for $7 trillion to build GPUs. Even the nonsensical gossip rag rumor explicitly has nothing to do with OpenAI, part of the "intrigue" was the perfidy of Sam doing it separate from OpenAI.

2) "Sam Altman is on a tour to raise money and raise valuations...at some of top universities in the world", figuratively, maybe, but not actually - they just raised a round in December and this isn't a company that needs to do PR at universities to catch investor attention.

3) "A few days ago at Stanford, Sam promised that AGI will be worth it, no matter how much it costs" -- actual quote: "I don't care if we burn $50 billion a year, we're building AGI and it's going to be worth it" -- that's not a "promise" nor "no matter how much it costs" -- yes, $50B is functionally 'no matter how much', so I'd give Gary charity of interpretation on that too - except as long as we're doing that, why are we over-reading Sam?
I like the comparison with alcohol, and on a tangent from that... I wonder if the 'Ballmer Peak' is partly explicable by being just drunk enough to avoid this kind of abstraction procrastination.
Yeah well the EU isn't exactly a bastion of freedom. There is not freedom of speech there.
Life is acting, choosing what to do and not to do. There is no idleness.